The requirement:

Sales reps want to view net totals per product family at the quote level.

The admin created 3 price rules with summary variables → each rule sums net totals for a product family and writes to a quote field.

However, while this works, it is NOT optimal for performance.

Salesforce CPQ documentation clearly identifies Summary Variables + Price Rules as one of the most CPU-intensive parts of the Quote Calculator, especially when multiple rules are evaluated on large quotes.

✔ Why C is the correct answerUsing Quote Line Groups provides built-in auto-summary fields, including:

Group Total

Group Discount

Group Net Total

Group List Total

etc.

And importantly:

CPQ allows summary rollups from groups to quote-level fields automatically without running price rules.

Zero price rule executions → lower CPU usage

Faster calculation because summary variables do not have to iterate across all quote lines

Native functionality is always more performant than custom rules

Cleaner design: assign each product family to its own Quote Line Group

Benefits:This matches Salesforce CPQ’s recommended best practice:

Use Quote Line Groups for logical grouping and auto-summaries instead of summary-variable-based price rules whenever possible.

When an escalation occurs on a Revenue Cloud implementation, the question is:

Who is ultimately responsible for the success of the project?

While many roles contribute, the Project Manager (PM) is the one accountable for:

Scope

Budget

Timeline

Risk & issue management

Cross-team coordination

Customer communication

Driving escalations and resolutions

Salesforce project methodology is clear:

The Project Manager owns overall project success.

Why the other roles are not the primary accountable party:Role

Why Not Responsible for Overall Success

Technical Architect

Owns technical integrity, not project success.

Solution Architect

Owns functional solution design, not delivery metrics.

Developer

Executes tasks, not responsible for project outcome.

Customer Success Manager

Supports customer relationship but not delivery execution.

Thus, the correct answer is:

✔ B — Project Manager

The question:

Which feature is needed to split Order Products into different Invoice Runs?

In Salesforce Billing, the feature that controls how order products are separated into different invoice runs is Invoice Group.

✔ Why Invoice Group is the correct answerThe Invoice Group field on:

Order Product

Order

Invoice

is used to:

Separate order products into different invoices within the same invoice run, or

Ensure specific order products are invoiced in different invoice runs entirely.

The Billing Engine evaluates Invoice Group when generating invoices:

Order Products with different Invoice Group values → will be generated on different invoices or different invoice runs, depending on the configuration.

This is the official Salesforce Billing mechanism for splitting invoice generation.

The consultant discovers:

Multiple triggers

Workflows

Flows

Possibly recursion or conflicting automations… on the Opportunity, which is foundational for CPQ.

Salesforce Revenue Cloud Best Practice:Use one automation type (preferably Flow) to avoid conflicts, recursion, performance issues, and unpredictable ordering.

Too many automation types cause issues with:

CPQ Quote Sync

Opportunity → Quote event handling

Performance and CPU limits

Unpredictable execution order

Therefore:

✔ A — Recommend using a single automation type for best performanceThis aligns with:

Salesforce Well-Architected Framework

Salesforce CPQ implementation guidelines

General platform automation best practices

Why other options are incorrect:Option

Why Not Correct

B

Large Quote Threshold affects calculator performance, not Opportunity automation.

C

Multiple automation types is the problem, not the solution.

D

Accepting the current messy automation is not recommended before CPQ implementation.

Thus A is correct.

RASIC is a well-known responsibility matrix used in Salesforce projects.

✔ Correct definition:R — Responsible

A — Accountable

S — Supporting

I — Informed

C — Consulted

This use case describes a three-dimensional pricing model where the price of a product is determined by length × width × height. These values are user selections (likely stored on Quote Line fields), and CPQ must determine the correct price based on a matrix of dimensions.

Salesforce CPQ documentation identifies Lookup Tables used with Price Rules as the standard method for implementing matrix or multi-attribute pricing.

✔ Why Price Rule with Lookup Table is the correct answerSalesforce CPQ Lookup Tables allow you to store pricing data externally from the product record and return the correct price based on multiple inputs.

Lookup tables can key off of multiple dimensions, e.g.:

Length

Width

Height

A price rule performs the lookup at calculation time and sets:

List Price, or

Custom price field

Create custom fields on Quote Line:

Length__c

Width__c

Height__c

Build a Lookup Table with key columns:

Length range

Width range

Height range

Resulting price

Build a Price Rule that uses:

Price Conditions → to map entered dimensions

Lookup Query → to fetch matching price

Price Action → to set the Quote Line's Unit Price

Relevant capabilities:Typical CPQ design for dimensional pricing:This is exactly the pattern Salesforce recommends for multi-attribute pricing.

❌ Why the other options are incorrectA. Percent of TotalUsed for:

Support fees

Add-on fees based on parent productsNot for dimensional pricing.

B. Multi-Dimensional Quoting (MDQ)Used for:

Term-based pricing (Year 1, Year 2, Year 3)

Usage tiers over time

MDQ does not support 3-dimensional physical attributes.

C. Discount ScheduleSupports:

Volume tiering

Quantity-based pricing

Does not support multi-attribute dimensional pricing.